HIV and Gay and Bisexual Men | NIH

Contents:

• RELATNSHIP BETWEEN GAY APP E AND HIV TTG AMONG MEN WHO HAVE SEX WH MEN SHENZHEN, CHA: A SERIAL CROSS-SECTNAL STUDY
• HIV AND ALL GAY AND BISEXUAL MEN
• RELATNSHIP BETWEEN THE E OF GAY MOBILE PHONE APPLITNS AND HIV FECTN AMONG MEN WHO HAVE SEX WH MEN NGBO, CHA: A CROSS-SECTNAL STUDY
• ENGAGG SEXUAL AND GENR MORY YOUTH HIV INTERVENTNS THROUGH GAY DATG APPS: RECMENT PROTOL

RELATNSHIP BETWEEN GAY APP E AND HIV TTG AMONG MEN WHO HAVE SEX WH MEN SHENZHEN, CHA: A SERIAL CROSS-SECTNAL STUDY

Use of gay app and the associated HIV/syphilis risk among non-mercial men who have sex wh men Shenzhen, Cha: a serial cross-sectnal study. Providg Onle-Based Sexual Health Outreach to Gay, Bisexual, and Queer Men Ontar, Canada: Qualative Interviews wh Multisectoral Frontle Service Provirs and Managers.

Image source, ThkstockImage ptn, One eight new HIV fectns occurs adolcents, makg this group a key target for health adviceMore adolcents are killed by HIV/Aids around the world than by anythg else, apart om road traffic HIV fectn rat have been fallg globally the past 10 years or so, among adolcents some regns they have been on the rise - promptg fears of a "hidn epimic" eight new HIV fectns occurs this group of young Asia, acrdg to a recent Unicef report, the epimic is growg fastt young gay and bisexual men. The app also provis rmatn on how and where to go for an HIV more than one ln active ers across 192 untri, Grdr is the largt and probably the bt-known gay platform. Discrimatory and hostile laws exist all around the globe, and they take aim squarely at HIV-posive people, who have the dacy to pursue a fulfillg gay men, we know that our sexual dacy is legendary.

On gay apps, you n disclose your HIV stat, if you are g PrEP, or if you are untectable, and some n even regularly remd you to get tted. Social and stctural issu—such as HIV stigma, homophobia, discrimatn, poverty, and limed accs to high-qualy health re—fluence health out and ntue to drive equi.

HIV AND ALL GAY AND BISEXUAL MEN

Relatnship between the e of gay mobile phone applitns and HIV fectn among men who have sex wh men Ngbo, Cha: a cross-sectnal study.

In recent years, there has been a signifint crease the e of gay mobile phone applitns (gay apps) and HIV prevalence among men who have sex wh men (MSM) Cha.

The aim of this study was to vtigate whether there was a relatnship between the e of gay apps and HIV fectn and provi a targeted terventn to MSM. A higher proportn of the gay app ers were younger than 19 years old, sgle, had high school tn, were earng ls than 115 GBP e per month, and intified themselv as homosexual.

RELATNSHIP BETWEEN THE E OF GAY MOBILE PHONE APPLITNS AND HIV FECTN AMONG MEN WHO HAVE SEX WH MEN NGBO, CHA: A CROSS-SECTNAL STUDY

It is suggted that the e of gay apps, pecially Blued, is popular among Che MSM and is associated wh high-risk sexual behavrs and HIV fectn. Therefore, there is an urgent need to promote HIV ttg and HIV preventn through gay apps to crease the risk of HIV fectn among Che MSM.

ENGAGG SEXUAL AND GENR MORY YOUTH HIV INTERVENTNS THROUGH GAY DATG APPS: RECMENT PROTOL

Communy-engaged mHealth terventn to crease uptake of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among gay, bisexual and other men who have sex wh men Cha: study protol for a pilot randomised ntrolled trial. MethodsWe nducted foc group discsns wh 38 gay and bisexual men, wh two -person groups Atlanta, two Seattle, and one onle foc group discsn wh gay and bisexual men ral US regns. Keywords: MSM, HIV, mobile phone app, mHealth, HIV preventnIntroductnGay, bisexual, and other men who have sex wh men (MSM) acunt for a disproportnate burn of cint human immunoficiency vis (HIV) fectns the Uned Stat.

Eligibily creria clud (1) age 18 years or olr, (2) male, (3) self-intifitn as gay or bisexual, (4) current rince Atlanta, GA, Seattle, WA, or a ral US unty, (5) never havg tted posive for an HIV tt, and (6) havg ever owned a mobile phone.

Durg FGDs, participants were shown screenshots and provid feedback on eight potential app functns: (1) rmatn about HIV ttg optns and creatg a ttg plan (Figure 1), (2) e of the phone’s lendar for remrs of upg HIV ttg dat, (3) a map of HIV ttg s, (4) lotn-based remrs for HIV ttg when near a ttg center (Figure 2), (5) non–lotn-based remrs for HIV ttg, (6) ratg and reviewg HIV ttg centers and other venu, cludg a review on how gay-iendly the venue is (Figure 3), (7) trackg of sexual behavrs over time wh a summary scribg rults (Figure 4), and (8) documentatn of HIV ttg rults (Figure 5). 1 (5)Table 2Co preferencGeneral discsns about what participants like/do not like about the apps that they eBeyond HIV ttgSTI ttg, PEP, PrEP, lkage to re (for HIV and STIs), mental health, other health issu; clu discsns support of and opposed to cludg addnal rmatn; clu any discsn of HIV/STI preventn that go beyond the origal suggted purpose of the app; DO NOT clu sex diari, gay yelpCredibily/ AuthoryDiscsns about tstg the app and the rmatn that is providg, credibily of the app and sourc behd rmatn (eg, CDC, doctors, universi), reliabily of how the app reports rults, whether or not an thorative tone is more tstworthy, ncerns regardg abe of the appCtomizatn/ PersonalizatnDiscsns of ways that the app n be ctomized or personalized to f the needs of different app ers; discsn of anythg optnal or scribed as “this should be optnal”; Co when a participant stat “this is not somethg that would work for me, but I n see this workg for people general” – statements that exprs how different ers may want to teract wh the app differentlyDign/ FunctnalyAny reference to the layout of the app, functns that should or should not be clud the app (and why), efulns of functns, relevance of functns, ments about how cluttered is, imag, etc; ease of e, simplicy; statements scribg if is “simple”, “straight forward”, “nfg” etc; battery life, data ageEdutnAll discsns of HIV/STI and health tn/rmatn, cludg discsns of how the app do or n te, why tn is important, etc; the type of tn/rmatn that participants want; how they want to receive tn/rmatnInteractive engagementEngagement wh the app rather than simply receivg rmatn (eg, discsns of puttg rmatn to the app via quizz, diari, etc), discsns of how the app already clus or n clu more teractive engagement, the importance of teractive engagement, the impact of teractive engagement on motivatn to e the appPerceived impactHow participants scribed the impact that the app uld have on HIV ttg, HIV risk, and sexual health, cludg both the dividual impact and the muny impact; the abily for the app to help start nversatns about HIV, the abily for the app to improve HIV preventn, HIV ttg behavrs, safer sex behavrs, etcPrivacy/ ConfintialyAny discsns/ncerns about privacy, nfintialy, or secury; ncerns that surance pani may get rmatn about the app; legal ncerns regardg HIV transmissnRelatable vs profsnalDiscsns of whether or not the tone/language of the app should be relatable or profsnal and whySharg dataWillgns or unwillgns to share data wh the program velopers; sharg data as a way to enhance the app, as a way to get rmatn back about yourself and/or muny, for rearch, as a way to give back to the muny; any motivatn for sharg data or not sharg data; DO NOT when discsns of sharg on social workg sSocial workgUsg the app for the purpose of workg wh the others; “check-s”; nnectns to Facebook, onle datg s, or other workg s; g the app for munitn wh others a social work, advertisg on social workg and/or onle hook-up s, sharg rmatn wh dividuals (iends, partners, etc)StigmaDiscsns about HIV stigma and homophobia and how the app n impact stigmaTarget populatnDiscsns about the target populatn and app dience mographics, cludg sexual orientatn (and outns), age, race, ral vs urban, Spanish speakers, etc; ments about how “gay” to make the app, ie, “don’t make too gay”Ttg barriers/ FacilatorsDiscsns about current barriers and facilators for regular HIV ttg for MSM, cludg accs to ttg, knowg where ttg s are loted, feelg safe/unsafe when gog to get tted, anonymo ttg vs required reportg, etcWillgns/ MotivatnsExprsns of willgns (and unwillgns or reluctance) to download and/or e the app, explanatns of why willg (or unwillg) to download and/or e the app; statements about whether or not there is a perceptn that others would be willg to e the app, discsns of what would motivate (or not motivate) someone to download and e the app regularlyFunctnalyEdutn In all FGDs at all study s, participants regnized an tnal ponent of the app as beg val to HIV preventn: “A real important aspect of preventn is tn… needs to have an tnal element so that people who might be qutng whether or not they should go and get tted, they n” (FGD1, Atlanta).

FGD2, AtlantaMany participants scribed wantg muny rmatn to “pare to everyone else that’s g the app” (FGD2, Atlanta):I would love if the data were actually aggregated and rearched…I would love to see a summary of my cy and jt terms of averag or somethg…[For example], last month the average gay man this zip Seattle had X number of different partners.

As a gay man, I am subjected to enough external guilt about what I do and how often I do and how I do and wh whom that I really don’t want extra guilt about I haven’t been tted however long or I’m engagg risky behavrs bee the purpose is not to cricize, the purpose is to change the behavr and to get people the health re that they need.

Men felt that if the app targets gay men, then would exclu some men and “would make fely not attractive to the bisexual/straight muny” (OFGD, ral).